AFFAIRS IN KANSAS TERRITORY- 



F 

68.5 




SPEECH 



OP 



HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, OF ILLINOIS, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 14, 1856,, 



pN THE MOTION TO PRINT THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND EXTRA COPIES OF THE REPORTS 07 THE 
MAJORITY AND MINORITY' OP THE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES 
IN REFERENCE TO AFFAIRS IN KANSAS, 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSLONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1856. 




Class. 



Rnnk T S Cp \ 



AEFAIES IN KANSAS. 



Mr. TRUMBULL said: Mr. President, I can- 
not consent, entertaining tlie views which I hold, 
that this report shall go before the country without 
expressing- my dissent. I am aware, sir, that it 
is here accompanied by a minority report which, 
in my judgment, presents this Kansas question in 
a masterly manner. It utterly refutes the major- 
ity report upon the groat question at issue; but 
having been prepared without an opportunity to 
examine the majority rep-ort, it was impossible 
that it could meet and expose all its unfounded 
assumptions. Had the two reports gone out to- 
gether, I would have been content; but, sir, the 
report of the majority has already been placed 
before the country, unaccompanied by that of the 
minority. It was sent out in advance of its de- 
livery to the Senate, and has appeared in a news- 
paper published in the city of New Yoi-k before 
itcould be printed in Washington; and <^ontaining, 
as in my judgment it does, many'unv/arranted 
assumptions, many inconsistencies, many false 
deductions from admitted premises, and advancing 
many erroneous propositions, I cannot consent 
that it sha|l now pass from our consideration nn- 
noticed, inasmuch as, losing this opportunity, we 
may not soon have another to express our views 
upon it. 

In the remarks which I have to make, I have no 
idea of putting myself, or the State which I have 
the honor in part to i-epresent, in the position of 
defending any such doctrines as the majority 
report seeks, by argument rather than by direct 
assertion, to attribute to those who differ from its 
conclusions. 

I do not intend to justify interference in the 
internal affairs of Kansas by the people of any 
portion of the Union contrary to law, and in vio- 
lation of the Kansas-Nebraska act. I do not 
design to justify cither insurrection or treason in 
any quarter; nor am I to be frightened from a 
statement of what I believe to be the true condi- 
tion of things in Kansas by the cry of insurrection 
and treason where none exist. While opposed 
to insurrectionists and traitors, I am equally 
opposed to tyrants and usurpers; and would be as 



ready to assist in putting down the one as the 
other. 

I deny, sir, that there is occasion to speak 
of any of the inhabitants of Kansas as traitors to 
this Government, or that there is any insurrection 
in that Territory, such as has been indicated in 
some of the documents which have been sent to 
this body. 

In discussing this mat.ter, it is important to 
k«cp in view the distinction between a State and 
a territorial government. Much is said in the 
report befcre us of the injustice of one State inter- 
fering in tho domestic affairs of another — much 
about the impropriety of attempting to impose an 
inequality on any of the States. Is there any 
man in this laird who ever thought that the citi- 
zens of one State had a right to interfere with the 
domestic institutions of any other State, or_ is 
there one who denies that the States of this Union 
are entitled to equal rights? Is that the position 
of those who have opposed the measure which 
has caused the present agitation and is threaten- 
ing us with civil war ? 

^Sir, the people whom I in part represent cnter- 
-tain no such views. The people of the State of 
Illinois, permit me to say, are loyal to this Union, 
to the Constitution, and all provisions of the Con- 
stitution; and when they condemned the depart- 
ure from the measures of 1850 by the repeal of 
the Missouri compromise, and the opening afresh 
of this dangerous slavery question, — whicJi, to use 
the language of the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] is the only question "which 
can ever put to hazard our Union and safety,—^ 
they had not the remotest idea of interfering with 
the domestic institutions of the States. Why, I 
ask, is it eternally thrust in the faces of those who 
oppose the extension of slavery into free Itnitory, 
that they want to produce an inequality among 
the States.' Whether slavery shall be permitted 
to extend into territories belonging to the United 
States from which it was excluded by acts of 
Congress for more than a generation, is quite 
another thing from going into the States and in- 
terfering with the institution there. Persona who 



were opposed to tlio repeal of the Missouri com- 
promise, and who are now opposed to the spread of 
slavery to the territory it made free, are not Ab- 
olitionists, though th(,'y may be falsely so called. 
The expression "abolitionize" appears in this 
report, is sometimes used in this Chamber, as also 
the epithet " Black Republican;"' but I trust that 
neither Senators nor the people are to be driven 
from a just consideration of public measures by 
tlie fear of incurring some opprobrious epithet, 
.applied to them by those who have no other argu- 
ment to offer. The veriest simpleton in your 
atrcets may cry out " Black Republican" or "Ab- 
olitionist." I do not design applying offensiVe 
names to the people of any part of this coimtry, 
nor is it my intention to say anything offensive 
to any gentleman uppn this floor, or to advocate 
any other doctrines than those which have been 
handed down to its by tlic Democratic fathers of 
the Republic. My position on the subject of 
slavery is the one occupied by all parties, but a 
very few years ago — by men in the South as well 
as in the North. 

Having said thus much, I propose to refer to 
some portions of this report. And the first prop- 
position to which I desire to call attention is the 
argument to show that the power of Congress to 
jegulate the Territories of the Unired States is 
{derived from that clause in the Constitution which 
authorizes the admission of new States into the 
Union. I thiijk it is not very material whence 
the power of Congress to regulate the Territories 
is derived; it is enough that it exists; but in 
hunting for that povv'cr, it occurs to me that one 
of the last clauses from which it can b^ properly 
deduced is that from which the committee seek 
to derive it. The power " to admit new States" 
into the Union gives to Congress, says this report, 
the power to govern Territories 1- Why, sir, the 
very action recommended by the committee con- 
tradicts the assumption. The report concludes 
with the statement that a bill is to be introduced 
to authorize the people of the Temtory of Kansas, 
when its population shall have attained a certain 
number, to form a State government preparatory 
to admission into the Union. The power to pass 
such an act may be derived, perhaps, from the 
clause in the Constitution of the United States 
wliich authorizes the admission of new States; 
and the very fact that a new law is necessary 
since the act was passed organizing the Territory 
of Kansas in order to admit it into the Union, 
shows that the first act was not passed with that 
view. The first act doe^not provide for the ad- 
mission of Kansas as a State ; and yet we are 
gravely told in this document that the only power 
wiiicli the Congress of the United Slates has to 
form a territorial government is that which is 
derived from the power to admit a new State ! 

I have no difficulty, myself, in finding the 
power in that other clause of tlic Constitution 
-(yhich declares that "Congress shall have power 
to make all needful rules and regulations respect- 
ng the territory or other property belonging tot 
he United States." I sec no propriety in limit- 
ing the word " territory" merely to land. The Ij 
rnen wiio framed our Constiiutioii understood the j | 
English Uuiguage. They would not have used] 



more words than were necessary to express ih^ 
idea they had in view. If the design was simply 
to allow Congress under that provision to make 
needful rules and regulations respecting the prop- 
erty of the United States, why say " the terri- 
tory or other property?" It would have been 
sufficient to have said simply, " they shall have 
authority to make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the property belonging to the United _ 
States. " But, sir, they did not stop there. They 
said respecting "the territory" as well as the 
" other property, and it should be borne in mind 
that the framers of the Constitution were laying 
the foundations for a political Government, The 
great object in view was to prepare a constitution 
for the government of persons, not merely to 
regulate the sale of land*. At that very time 
there' was belonging to the Umted States, the 
Northwestern Territory, and provision had then 
been made foe-its goveinment. Some of thQ very 
men in the convention which formed the Consti- 
tution had cooperated in passing the ordinance 
of 1 7S7 respecting that Territory, and the j' doubt- 
less incorporated this clause in the Constitution 
with the very intention of continuing the power 
to govern it. 

In view of these facts, is it reasonable to sup- 
pose that they intended the word " territory" in 
that limited sense which the committee have 
thought proper to give it? 

Sir, there are other clauses in the Constitution 
of the United States from which this power might 
he dei'ived. There is the treaty-making power. 
Can it be said that this great Government was 
formed with authority to declare war and make 
peace, and yet was left without the power to pro- 
vide a temporary government for the countries it 
might, at any time by the chances of war, con- 
quer and possess? We should not be an inde- 
pendent nation if we had not this power to ac- 
quire territory by the force of arms, and, when we 
obtained it, to protect and govern its inhabitants 
until they should become eufficiently numerous 
to form a State government for themselves. 

But, sir, I will not dwell on this. The power 
is admitted, but it is admitted to a very limited 
extent. Here I wish to point out pne of the 
inconsistencies of the report. It says; 

" So fr.r as the organization of a Territory maybe neces- 
sary anil piopiT !13 a iiit-aiis of carrying iiilo etil'ct the pro- 
vision of tin; Constitution for tlie admission of new States, 
and when exerci^icd witli reference only to tliat end, the 
power of Congress is clear and explicit ; but bejoiid that 
point the authority cannot exto-nd." 

The proposition is here broadly laid down that, 
beyond tiie point of providing the means of wrry- 
ing into effect the provision for the admission of 
new States, the power to govern the Territories 
does not exist. Is that true? Can it be main- 
tained ? Is it one of the necessary means, in order 
to admit a Ten-itory into the Union as a Stjite, 
that Congress should govern it before it comes 
in ? Is the exercisi; of the power conferred by 
the Kansas-Nebraska act necessary for the ad- 
mission of those Territories as Slates into the 
Union ? What is that act ? A long law, contain- 
ing thirty-seven sections, and providing for those 
Territories Governors and Legislatures, judges 



5 



nnd marshals; dcfiniiis: tlio jurisdiction of justices 
of the peace, and providing all the machinery for 
the territorial governments. I desire to know 
what the julrisdiction of u justice of the peace, or 
anyofthcse provisions, have todo withlhc admis- 
sion of Kansas into the Union as a State? Can 
the position be maintained for a moment, that it 
is necessary or proper, as preliminary to the ad- 
mission of a State into this Union, that Congress 
should declare that a territorial justice of the 
peace should not have jurisdiction in cases ex- 
ceeding $100, or relating to real estate? If the 
assumptions of this report are correct, such is the 
case; for wc are told that it is only when the 
power of Congress is exercised in refirencc to 
the admission of a new State, that it has any 
right to legislate for a Territory, aiid of course it 
will not be contended that the Kansas-Nebraska 
, act is not constitutional. 
Again, it is said: 

'• The act of Confess for t^ie organization of the Terri- 
tories of Kansas and Nebrar^ka was designed to coiifonii to 
the spirit and letter of tlie Federal Constitution, by preserv- 
in;r and maintaining the fiuidaniental principle of equality 
anions; all the States of the Union, notwithstanding the re- 
striction contained ill tlie eighlli section of tlio actaf liie Cth 
■of M?.rcli, 1820, preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
into the Union." 

I would like to know from the committee what 
under heaven the organization of a territorial gov- 
ernment in Kansas lias to do with equality among 
all the States ? What has it to do with the eijual- 
itjr of right between Nev/ York and Ohio, Illinois 
and Georgia ? Still, that is the oUject which is 
avowed, to preserve equality among the States, 
and that '* notwithstanding the restriction con- 
tained in the eighth section of the act of the Gth 
of March, 1820, preparatory to the admission of 
Missouri into the Union, which assumed to deny 
to the people forever the right to settle the ques- 
tion of slavery for themselves, provided they 
should make their homos and organize States 
north of 3GO 30' north latitude. " Did the eighth 
section of the act preparatory to the admission of 
Missouri into the Union assuime what is here 
charged? That provision, in my judgment, has 
been very much misunderstood. It is a provision 
relating to the " terrUorif north of SG^ 30' north 
latitude, and not to tlie States to be formed out of 
it. I have not the provision before me, but I 
know that it provides substantially, that "in all 
that territory" north of 30° 30', slavery shall be 
forever prohibited. The word " forever" occurs 
in it; and that word seems to be very potent 
in the estimation of some gentlemen; but, like 
the word " hereafter," or any other, word used 
in a law in reference to a Territory, it ceases to 
have effect whenever the Territory ceases to exist. 
After the Territory is admitted into the Unioh as 
a State, the laws provided for its -governrnent 
while a Territory become nugatory, unless some 
provision be made for their continuance. 

It is conceded by all, that any of the old States 
may abolish or establish sla-very at pleasure; and, 
as a new State is admitted into the Union on an 
equal footing with the original States, it has, when 
•admitted, the same right, whether there had been 
an inhibition against slavery while it was a Ter- 
ritory or not. The Missouri compromise M'ould 



] therefore have an end as fast as the territory 
I north of 36° 30' was formed into States and ad- 
'< mitted into the Union. The provision cppHes 
in terms to the " territory," and not to the States 
'which might afterwards be formed out of that 
; territory. The constant attempt to make prom- 
' inent the equality of the States, as if somebody 
doubted it, and to assimilate States to'Territorres, 
is only calculuted to confuse the mind. It is desir- 
' al'le that the people of the South should undor- 
' stand that there is no disposition in the North to 
; interfere with the rights of the people in any State 
of tkis Union in reference to slavery. They 
should cease to believe that there is any consid- 
erable number of persons entertaining such a sen- 
timent; for I leave out of my remarks tfiat little 
j fraction of fanatics, some of whom may be found, 
both North and South, who are hostile to the 
Union of the States, who bear no considerable 
I proportion to the people of this Union, North or 
J South, and with whose disorganizing schemes 
j the great mass of those who are to-day opposing 
the spread of slavery have no more sympathy 
than the slaveholders themselves. 

Mr. TOUCEY. Will the Senator allow me 
to ask him a question for information? 
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly. 
Mr. TOUCEY. I wish to ask the Senator 
whether, in his ojjinion, a restriction of that kind 
can be imposed on a new State as a condition of 
admission intp the Union? 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall be very happy to 
answer the Senator. The propriety of admitting 
a State into the Union is to be determined when 
that State makes application for admission. It is 
not an absolute right. Congress is not bound to 
admit into the Union every new State which pre- 
sents a republican constitution, whether tolerating 
slavery or containing a provision prohibiting it. 
It is a matter to be decided under the circum- 
stances existing at the time; and if ever an appli- 
cation shall be made while I have the honor to 
hold a seat here, either by a State presenting a 
free or a slave constitution, and I shall belie v^ 
thf^t the admission of such State iiito this Union 
will seriously endanger its existence, I-^vill never 
give my vote for its admission. If Utah, with her 
plurality wife system, and other obnoxious pro- 
visions in her constitution, tending in rny judg- 
iiitnt to sap the foundations of our institutions if 
admitted to an equal heritage with us, should ask 
admission. Congress would have the right, as I 
conceive, to roluse it until the obnoxious pro- 
visions were stricken out. 

In advocating these viev/s I am comiBitting no 
body but myself, for I am not speaking for any 
political organization in the country. I would 
not undertake to speak for Senators on the oppor 
site side of this Chamber, although from child- 
hood up I have always maintainetl, to the extent 
of my ability, Dt'inocraiic principles, and sus- 
tained Democratic men. I have done so on prin- 
ciple, believing the policy of the Democratic 
party best for the interests of the country. I 
never was one of those, however, who supported 
a measure without examination, merely because 
it was proposed by political friends ; or con- 
demned it without investigation, simply because 



6 



it came from a political opponent. Having, my- 
self, been united with none of the new parties 
of the day, v/hetherthey be called Republican or 
American, or by any other name— having; been 
associated with no political organization in my 
life, public or private, except the Democyatic 
party, it will not be understood that, in the views 
which I advance, I profess to speak for any- 
body except for myself and the constituency I, 
in part, represent. ' , - , t j ■ 

Anoth'.r bj;anch of this report to which 1 desire 
to call attention is in those words: 



•' In olKiiicnec to the Constitution, the Kansas Nebraska 
aot(leclar<-il,in the prcci.-e lan!;uage of the compromise 
iiieasures of 1 SJO, that ' when a'Vuiitted as a Htate, tlie paid 
' Tcrritoi V, or any portion of the same, shall be received into 
'the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution 
' may prasciibc at the time of their admission.' " 

From this clause, which has no practical effect 
whatever, eitlier in the compromise measures of 
1850, or the Kansas-Nebraska act, it has been 
contended that the compromise measures of 1850 
were inconsistent with the compromise of 1820. 
I deny the position. There is no inconsistency 
between them. The Missouri compromise, as 
alreadv shown, did not prevent the admission of 
a State irto the Union witli or without slavery, 
as its constitution mi2,ht prescribe at the tune of 
its admission. The clause incorporated into the 
Kansas-Nebraska act does not have the cfiect to 
biins a State into tlie Union, either with oV with- 
out slavery, or to bind any future Congress to do 
so. Cono-ress will aet on that question when it 
arises. When Kansas shall present herself with 
a constitution, either establishing or j)rohibiting 
slavery, is there any Senator who will consider 
himself bound by a declaratory provision inserted 
in the act organizing her territorial govermnentr 
I presume not. This report concludes with the 
recommendation of the passage of a bill to enable 
the people of Kansas to form a State goycrnmeivt. 
Is it not competent for Congress, if it should 
think proper, to insert in that bill a provision that 
this particular clause shall be repealed , or to insert 
? clause, that slavery shall not exist in Kansas 
while a Territory? ,• i t 

The assumption, then, that the clause which l 
have cited, and which was inserted in the terri- 
torial acts of 1850, is inconsistent with the Mis- 
souri compromise, is not maintainable unless yjpu 
say that tlic Missouri compromise, proliibiting 
slavery in a Terrilorif, is to have effect after that 
Territory becomes a Stale, which I deny. This 
report proceeds to quote further from the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, as follows: 

" !t bein" the true intent and meaning of tliis act not to 
Icislatc Ll-"very into any Sfite or Tcrritv>ry, nor to exclude 
itlhcrefiom, but to leave the people thcieol pniieclly Hoc 
til tonn and icgnlatc tlicirdom.^stic institutions m thenov.iv 
way, subject only to tlie Conntitutioii of the United States. 

Why thrust into tliis provision the word Slate 7 
as if there were somebody in the country who 
wanted Congress to legislate slavery into a State 
or out of a State? No person, as fur as I know, 
maintains such a position; and it is well known 
that tliis clause in the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
couclied in the language in which it is, has given 
rise to various constructions in different parts of 
the Union. I believe it is the u:rivers:il under 



standing with southern men, that under this pro- 
vision tliey have a right to go with their slaves 
into theTcrritory of Kansas, and hold them there 
as such. A majority of those who voted for the 
Kansas-Nebraska act, and who carried it through 
Congress, understand that the moment the Mis- 
souri compromise was repealed those Territories 
were open to the admission of slavery. 1 lus^has 
been the practical operation of the law. I h«'e 
in my possession the proceedings of a mass meet- 
ing held in the Territory of Kansas, as early as 
September, 1854, before any Territorial Legisla- 
ture convened , and of course before there was any 
leo-islutive action in the Territory on the sijbject of 
slavery. Among their resolutions I find these, 
indorsing the principles of the Kansas squatter 
society: 

" That Kansas Territory, and as a consequence the Slate 
of Kansas, of right diould he, and therefore shaU be, slave 

'"" wT'liereby declare that, as this [squatters'] socict.y 
embraces nine tenths of tlie present settlers ot this Terri- 
tory, we are entitled to, and will exercise the right of ex- 
pelling from the Territory-, or otherwise punishing, any in- 
dividual or individuals who may come among us and bv act, 
conspiracy, or oth.» illegal means, entice away, our slave- 
' or clandes'jnely attempt in any way or form toatfectour 
rights of property in the same." 

How did it happen that there were slaves in 
the Territory at that early day, and that nine 
tenths of the settlers should resolve to expel from 
the Territory any individual who should attempt 
to affect their right of property ia the same un- 
less, in the abs<,-nce of any local law on the subject, 



less, JIl uic Cli-'.3.,i»^v, « _, - .. 

the uro-slavery- party supposed they liad a right 
to hold siftves'in the Territory ? This action of 
the squatters' society took place before the first 
emigrants who went to Kansas under the patron- 
ao-e'of the emigrant aid society had arrived in the 
l\Tritory, and shows, not only the construction 
the squatters 'society put on the Kansas-Nebraska 
act, but a fixed determination, from the outset, to 
force slavery into Kansas by violence. 

I am aware that the Kansas act was differently 
understood in some other parts of the Union. 
The disiino-uished Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Cass] belii^ves, if I understand his position cor- 
rectly, that slavery cannot exist without a mu- 
nicipal law to protect it; and that, in the absence 
of any local law on the subject, slavery cannot 
loo-ally exist in any of our Territories. Ural 
was the doctrine of the whole country a few years 
ao-o Tiie committee have not thought proper to 
tell us, in lh;<5 kngthy report, whether it is the 
doctrine now. Such was formerly the law, feoutli 
as well as North. I wish to read an extract, not 
however fr0m this report, which I have taken 
upon this subject. It is this: 

"The relation of owner and slave is, in the States of the 
Union ill which it lias legal existence, a creature <>< /im.ii- 
cipal law. Although, perhaps, in none ol H'*:'". '.^,'; "'^ "i 
trodueimi U as to the blacks can be produced, "'=• i Jil,. 
vrM in all, statutes were passed for rcgulaiuig and di»=olvuig 
it." - . , 

Here is a direct assertion that slavery in the 
States where it exists is a creature of municipal 
lav.-, and from what source do you siippose it 
comes ? Probably the " New England Eiiugmin 
I Aid Society " have advanced that opinion. No, 
sir; it ii the doctrine promulgated ui the State ot 



Louisiana by its Supreme Court, '(14 Martin's 
Louisiana Reports, 401.) Again, I read frona an- 
other decision: 

" Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of na- 
ture ; it exists, and can only exist, tlirough municipal regu- 
lations." 

Whence do you suppose this sentiment comes, 
which, if promulgated in Kansas, would subject 
its author to punishment.' It was proclaimed 
as law by the courts of Mississippi, and is to 
be found in 1 Walker's Mississippi Reports, at 
page 36. I could detain the Senate for hours in 
reading from the opinions of courts in various 
sections of the Union, establishing this same prin- 
ciple; but a change has occurred. The entire 
South, so far as I know, and some eveii in the 
North, now repudiate the doctrine, and those who 
still adhere to it are stigmatized by many as Ab- 
olitionists. This is an evidence of the advance 
which pro-slavery sentiments are making in the 
country. ^ 

But, sir, the Kansas-Nebraska act is under- 
stood differently in different sections of the Union, 
in another respect. In the North, it is very gen- 
erally insisted, that under that act the Territorial 
Legislature has the right to establish or abolish 
slavery, but, in the South, that position is con- 
troverted. The assumption is now put forth that 
slavery, by virtue of the Constitution of the United 
States, may lawfully exist in the Territories, and 
that the Territorial Legislatures have no power to 
exclude it. 

The Kansas-Nebraska act, having, as has been 
shown, no fixed and certain principle, but subject 
to as many different versions as there are sections 
in the Union, and upon which opposite construc- 
tions may be put with equal plausibility to suit 
the peculiar views of each locality, is the law 
which is so much extolled in thLs report, whicli, 
however, omits to explain the meaning of the 
principle it so much eulogizes, and about which 
so much controversy has arisen; but its author, 
(Mr. Douglas,] in a speech delivered in this 
body, in 1850, showed the fallacy of the positions 
now assumed by the South, and that to prohibit 
slavery in a Territory was no violation of south- 
ern rights. He then said: 

'• What share had the Soutli in the Teiritories ? or the 
Nortli.' or any otlier geographical division uilkuoNni to the 
Constitution .' I answer, none ; none at all. The Territories 
belong to the United States as one people, one nation, and 
are to be disposed of fortlie common benefit of all, accord- 
ing to tlK? principles of the Constitution. Each State, as a 
member of the Confederacy, has a right to a voice hi form- 
ing the rules and regulations for the government of the Ter- 
ritories ; but the difterent sections-— North, South, East, and 
West— have no such right. It is no violation ot' southern 
rights to prohihit slavery, nor of northern rights to leave tlie 
people to decide the question for themselves." 

Again, in the same speech, my colleague said: 

"Some species of property are excluded by law in most 
of the States, as well as Territories, as being unwise, im- 
moral, or contrary to the principles of sound public policy. 
ForJnslance, the banker is prohibited from emigrating to 
Min\iesota. Oregon, or California with his bank. The bank 
may be property by the laws of New York, but ceases to he 
80 when tiikeii into a State or Territory where banking is 
prohibited by tlio local law. So, ardent spirits, wlli^ky, 
brandy, all tlie intoxicating drinks, are recognized and pro- 
tected as property in most of the States, if not all of them ; 
but no citizen, whether from the Nortii or South, can take 
tJiis specie:) of property with him, and hold, sell, or use it 



at his pleasure, in all Uic Territories, because it is prohibited 
by the local law— in Oregon by the statutes of the Terri- 
tory, and in the Indian country by the acts of Congress. 
Nor can a man go there,*and take and hold his slave for 
the same reason. These laws, and many others involving 
similar principles, are directed against no section, and im- 
pair the rights of no State of the Union. They are law:i 
against the introduction, sale, and use of specific kinds of 
property, whether brought from tlie North or tlie South, or 
from foreign countries." 

The distinguished Senator from Michigan, in 
his speech when the Kansas-Nebraska act was 
under consideration, devoted a large portion of it 
to this question, and proved conclusively that the 
exclusion of slaves from a Territory was no en- 
croachment upon the equal rights of the people 
of the South. 

Now, sir, I assert that the boasted principle of 
the Kansas-Nebraska act, which is claimed to be 
of such vital moment, lias no sort of importance 
except for evil in consequence of its vagueness 
and uncertainty; that it is a principle which is 
not understood alike in the North and in the 
South; and that while much pains is taken in the 
re^rt to discuss constitutional questions, it does 
not inform us whether under the Constitution and 
the Kansas act, slaves may rightly be taken to 
and held in that Territory in the absence of any 
municipal law on the subject. Nor are we told 
distinctly in the report whether the Territorial 
Legislature has a right to prohibit or to establish 
slavery. I admit it does tell us that the people 
of the'Territoryare to regulate their own domes- 
tic institutions in their own way; but when, ia 
not said. 

This clause is understood by some to apply to 
the people of a Territory when they come to 
form a State government,'and that they are to be 
permitted then, and not before, to regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way. 
That I believe to be the southern understanding 
of the bill. But the author of the report has not 
thought proper to tell us distinctly whether it is 
his understanding ornot. 

I come next to tha't portion of the report which 
assails the emigrant aid society. Sir, I am not 
the apologist of that society. There are Sena- 
tors here much better acquainted with its opera- 
tions, and much more capable of defending it, 
if it needs defense, than I am; but I wish to look 
at it in the light in which it is presented in this 
report. I will not travel out of the record after 
rumors, as has sometimes been charged, but will 
take the statements of the report itself, and then 
call the attention of the Senate to the doctrines 
which were promulgated when the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act was passed, and ask whether there be 
anything in the action of the emigrant aid society 
as set forth, not as ai-gued, in the report, at all in- 
consistent with the doctrines which were promul- 
I gated on all sides of the Senate when that act 
i was under consideration. The report says: 

"Although the act of incorporation does not distinctly 
declare that the company was formed for the purpose of 
controlling the domestic institutions of the Territory of 
Kansas, and forcing it into the Union with a prohihiliou of 
slavery in her constitution, rcgini-'cfs of the n^''i/s and 
n-ishcs of the people, as guarnnUcd by the Constitution of 
the United States, and secured by their organic law, yetthQ 
whole history of the movement, the circumstances in 
wliicli it had j|s origin, and the professions and avowals of 



8 



all engaged in it, render it certain and undeniable that such 
was its object." 

Thus the charge is distinctly made, that the 
object of the emigrant aid society was, "regard- 
less of the rights and wishes of the people as 
guarantied by the Constitution of the United States 
and secured by their organic law," " to force Kan- 
sas into the Union with a prohibition of slavery 
in her constitution." Let us see how that charge 
compares with the declarations of Senators at 
the time the bill was under consideration. The 
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] took 
the trouble, a few days since, to read to the Sen- 
ate the opinions of Senators, both from the North 
and the South, delivered when that bill was pend- 
ing, and I think he read from the remarks often 
or a dozen Senators, in which they stated in the 
strongest language that thf. question of the repeal 
of the Missouri compromise was of no practical 
importance, and that slavery could never go to 
Kansas. It was then asserted by some of the 
advocates of the bill that every sensible man knew, 
and every candid man would admit, that soil Ihd 
climate forbade the introduction of slaves into the 
Nebraska-Kansas region, which is all above 36° 
30'. This opinion was sustained, as the Senator 
from New Hampshire proved, by Mr. Pettit, of 
Indiana; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Toucey, 
of Connecticut; Mr. Thomson, of New Jersey; 
Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Badger, of 
North Carolina; Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, 
(who quotes, as sustaining. him in his opinion, 
"what everybody knew;") Mr. Douglas, of Illi- 
nois; Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky; Mr. Jones, of 
Tennessee; and Mr. Cass, (who quotes all these.) 
All these Senators, except Mr. Everett, were 
advocates of the bill; and it was proclaimed on all 
sides of the Senate tlmt no practical importance 
attached to the repeal of the Missouri compro- 
mise, because Kansas was not intended to he a 
slave Territory, and slavery would never go there. 
One Senator, on a previous occasion, had said: 
" I knowof no man who advocates the extension 
of slavery over country now free." This was 
very strong language, and it is to be found in a 
speech delivered in the Senate, in 1849, by the 
author of the report upon which I am comment- 
ing, and afterwards reported in the Congressional 
Globe. It was proclaimed to the world by the ad. 
vocates of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that Kansas 
was to be a free Territory. It was said on the 
face of tlic bill that its Intention was " not to legis- 
late slavery into ' ' the Territory. Then , let me ask , 
how did the emigrant aid society, as is charged 
in this report, act " regardless of the rights and 
wishes of the people," as secured by the organic 
act, in aiding to settle Kansas with a free State 
population ? It was proclaimed to the citizens of 
Massachusetts that Kansas was to be a free State. 
Gentlemen from the South said they expected 
nothing else. Still, when a society is formed for 
the purooso of aiding emigrants to settle in it as 
a free Territory, and to make it a free State, they 
are charged with acting " regardless of the prin- 
ciples" of the Kansas-Nebraska act! 

Again, the report states that the society secured 
the color of legal authority to sanction their pro- 
ceedings, and acted " in perversion of the plain 



provisions of an act of Congress." The objects 
of the emigrant aid society, as set out in the report, 
ai3c said to be, to aid emigrants going to Kansas, 
with the expectation thatit will be a free State. 
Was not that your expectation here ? Now, it 
is charged upon those who went to woj-k to ac- 
complish the very object which ' you yourselves 
said was to be brought about, that they acted " in 
perversion of the plain provisions of an act of 
Congress." A plam statement of facts is all that 
is necessary to exjiose the unfairness of this part 
of the report. Let the people — the candid and the 
considerate, those not led oy impulse and preju- 
dice, but by their reason and judgment — look at 
the facts; and ask themselves if the persons as- 
sisted on their way to Kansas by the emigrant 
aid society did anything wrong — if they violated 
any provision of the organic act when they went 
there to do that which, upon all sides, it was 
admitted was to be done ? 

Again, this report, after admitting the right of 
persons from any quarter to go to the Teri'itory 
and settle as independent freemen, says: 

" But it is a very different thing where a State creates a 
vast moneyed corporation for the purpose of controlhag tlie 
doniostic institutions of a distinct political coiumunit}' fif- 
teen hundred miles distant, and sends out the emigrants 
only as a iix^atis of accomphshing its paramount politicaf 
object'!. When a ptuverful corporation; with' a capital of 
,■^5,000,000 invested in houses and lands, in merchandise and 
mills, in cannon and rifles, in powder and leafi, in all the 
iniplemonts of art, ajriculturo, and war, atid employing a 
conespnndinn; number of men, all under tlie management 
and control of non-resideijt directors and stockholders, who 
are authorized by their charier to vote by proxy to the 
extent of fifty votes each, enters a distant and sparsely- 
settled Territory with the fixed purpose of v.'ieldinj all in its 
power to control the domestic institutions and destinies of 
the Territory" — 

Ajid so it would be a very different thing; but 
has any such thing occurred? Never. The pro- 
ceedings of the emigrant aid society, which are 
incorporated in the report, do not set forth any 
such state of fact. They do not show that the 
emigrant aid society has invested a capital of 
$5,000,000, or one cent, in powder and ball, in 
cannon and rifle. Oh, no! The report is very 
far from charging that. Such a charge, if made, 
could be met and refuted. What is charged ? It 
is alleged in the report that an emigrant aid so- 
ciety was incorporated, &c.; and then it declaims 
against a society that should invest its means in 
pov/der and cannon, rifle and ball, to control fhe 
domestic institutions of a distant Territory. This 
is not charged directly upon the emigrant aid 
society, but by inference only. When a society 
shall be found so engaged in fact, I will unite with 
the committee in opposition to its insurrectionary 
movements; but I ani not Ctuixotic enough to 
combat with windmills and shadows. 

A society relying upon force and ammunition 
for its success would more nearly resemble those 
which were organized in western Missouri; and 
the mistake on the partof the author of this elab- 
orate report seems to have been in assigning the 
formation and existence of the society he de- 
scribed to a wrong localit)'. 

We might take up the charter of the coloniza- 
tion society, and, after reading it, proceed to de- 
claim against the abomination of getting up an 



organization to produce insurrection among the j 
negroes; but tlie colonization society an4 insur- 
rection would liave no more to do M'ith each other I 
than good and evil. They are as far apart as the ' 
poles; and so is the real action of the emigrant j 
aid societyand that action which is argued against 
in this report. It is against assumptions of this ' 
kind in the report that I am speaking. ~ j 

Here is another specimen of its fan-ncss: ; 

" Wlien the emigiantr! sent out by the Sla.-^sarhiisetts Em- i 
jsrant Aid Company, and their afliliatrd pocicties!, passed 
through the State of" Jlissouri in lar-ie numliers on their way 
to Kansas, the violence of their hiuguago, and t)ie unmis- 
takable indications of their determined hostility to the do- 
mestic institutions of that State, excited apprehensions that 
the object of the company was to abolitionizc Kansas." 

What! " aboUtionize Kansas!" It was said ! 
on all sides of the Senate Chamber, that it was ' 
never meant to have slavery go into Kansas. 
What is meant, then, by abolitionizing Kansas? ; 
Is it abolitionizing a Territory already free, and i 
>vhich was never meant to be anything but free, ! 
for free-State men to settle in it ? I cannot under- 
stand the force of such language; but they , were I 
to abolitionize Kansas, according to this report, i 
and for what purpose? " As a means for prose- ] 
outing a relentless warfare on the institution, of 
slavery within the limits of Missouri." Where j 
is the evidence that such M'as the design ? I would 
like to see it. It is not in this report; and if it ! 
exists I -A'ill go as far as the gentleman to put it ; 
down. I will neither tolerate nor countenance, by ' 
my action hero or elsewhere, any society which ! 
is resorting to means for prosecuting a *' relent- 
less warfare upon the institution of slavery 
within the limits of Missouri," or any other State. 
But there is not a particle of evidence of any such 
intention in the document which professes to set 
forth the acts of the emigrant aid society, and 
which is incorporated into this report. But the 
report goes further and says: 

" The natural consequence was, that immediate steps 
were taken by the people of the western counties of Mis- 
souri to stirnulate, organize, and carry into eti'eet a system i 
of emigration similarto that of the Massachusetts Emigrant i 
Aid Company, for the avowed purpose of counteracting tlie j 
efiects, and protecting themselves and their domestic msti- [ 
tiitions from the consequences of that company's opera- | 
lions. ' 

" The materia! diflcrenee in the character of the two rival i 
nnd conflictiTio; movements consists in the fact, that the one 
had its origin in an agjressive, and the other in a defensive j 
policy : the one organized in pursuance of the provisions 1 
and claiming to act under the authority of a legislative j 
enactment of a distant State, v.'hose internal prosperity and 
domestic security did not depcad upon the success of the 
movement ; while the other was the spontaneous action of 
the people living in the immediate vicinity of the theater of 
operations, excited by a sense of copiinon danger to tlio 
nece-isity of protecting their own firesides from the appre- 
hended horrors of servile insurrection and intestine war." 

I could bring the President of the United States 
as a witness against these assumptions; for he has 
told us, in his special message on Kansas aifairs, 
in alluding to the action of the Emigrant Aid 
Society, that its action was " far from justifying 
the illegal and reprehensible counter-movements , 
which ensued." 

Now, sir, what are the facts ? Will those two 
movements bear comparison at all? Are they of ' 
the same character? The report sets forth, in its j 
mosi objectionable features, no doubt, the action ] 
of the emigrant aid socict}", and it amounts sim- 1 



ply to this: that it was taking measures to aid 
persons on their way to Kansas for the settle- 
ment of the country to remain there as settlors. 
There is not a particle of evidence in the report — 
it is not even Asserted, that the emigrants who 
went forth under the patronage of the emigrant 
aid society did not go to Kansas to reside. There 
may be an argument in the report against persons 
who went there under the patronage of that soci- 
ety without the intention of residing; butt4iere is 
no allegation' that any such did go. 

Well, sir, what are the f?.ctsin reference to the 
organizations in the western counties of Missouri? 
I shall not detain the Senate by going over a mi- 
nute history of the transactions on that border. 
The Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilso.v,] 
a few days ago, did that; and he showed that men 
went into Kansas from Missouri in organized 
companies, witli music beating and banners fly- 
ing; that they went to the polls, took possession 
of them and voted; that in that Territory, where 
there were but 2,877 voters when the census wa3 
taken in February, more than G,000 votes were 
cast in the month of March following. He read 
from papers to show that the Missourians return- 
ed in companies to their homes after the election 
was over. The matter was of public notorie- 
ty. 'Everybody knew it. Is there any instance 
where the emigrant, aid society, or persons sent 
out under its patronage, ever drove a man from 
the polls? It is not pretended. Is there any com- 
parison between the peaceable emigrant who goes 
into a Territory to settle and reside, and anariny 
of invaders who go there to impose laws en its 
defenseless inhabitants? To show the spirit of 
the men upon the Missouri border and those af- 
filiated with them in Kansas, I will read an article 
from the Squatter Sovereign of May 29, 1855, 
which was before, the Legislature met; this is it: 

"From reports now received of Reeder,he neverintends 
returning to our borders. Should l;e do so, we, without 
hesitation, say that our people ought to hang him by the 
neck Uke a traitorous dog, a* he is, so soon as he puts his 
unhallowed feet upon our shores. 

" Vindicate your characters and the Territory; and should 
the imgratefuldog dare to conic among us again, hang him 
to the first rotten tree. 

" A military force to protect the hallot-box ! Let Presi- 
dent Pierce or Governor Keeder, or any other power, at- 
tempt such a course in this, or any portion of the Union, luid 
that day will ntfvt-rbc forgotten." 

The paper which contained tliis article has 
flaunting at its head these words: " In this paper 
the laws of Congress are published by authority." 
The editors of the paper are " Stringfellow and 
Kelly." It will be remembered that the election 
for members of the Legislature took place on the 
30th of March, 1855. . 

In the Squatter Sovereign of April 1 following 
is pubhshed this article: 

" Indevendence, March 31, 1855. 
" Several hundred emigrants from Kansas have just entered 
our city. They were preceded by the Westport and lade- 
pendcneo brasi? bands. They came in at the west side of 
the public sqhare, and proceeded entirely around it, th^ 
bands cheerin" us with tiae music, and the emigrants with 
good news, finmediately following the bands were about 
two hundred horsemen in regular order ; following these 
were one hundred and fifty -wiigons. carriages, &c. They 
gave repeated cheers-for Kansas and iMissouri. They report 
that not tin anti-Slavery man will be in the Legislature of 
Kansas. We have made a clean sweep." 



10 



Had the emigrant aid society been guilty of 
half the outrages which are herepuhlisned to the 
•world with impunity by the Missourians, do you 
■believe the focts would have been smothered up 
by this report ? The most objectionable features 
in the transactions of that society are set forth in 
the report; and is there anything in them to com- 

Sare with what the Missourians boast of having 
one ? Two hundred horsemen were following in 
the rear of the army as it returned from Kansas — 
the army which, in tlfe language of Governor 
Reeder, while Governor, had "conquered and 
subjugated" the people of the Territory. And 
this we are' told was an organization similar to 
tlie emigrant aid society ! 

Next, Mr. President, the report gives in detail 
the proceedings of Governor Reeder preparatory 
to the election, the orders which he issued for 
protecting the polls, and various matters con- 
nected with the election. Bear in mind that it 
does not deny this invasion from Missouri. No, 
sir, that fact is loo well authenticated; but it ar- 
gues that the persons elected as members of the 
Territorial Legislature received certificates of 
election from Governor Reeder, were -recognized 
by him as a Legislature, and therefore its acts 
are binding! That is the substance of (he argu- 
ment. It does not prqtend to deny that the elec- 
tions were carried by fraud ; that the people of 
Kansas were conquered and driven from the polls, 
as was published , and alleged all over the colintry , 
and is a fact as well known to every intelligent 
man in the land as it is that the English and the 
Russians have lately been at war. 

But, sir, it is said that the laws passed by this 
spurious Legislature are binding, and are to be 
enforced at tlie point of the bayonet; and those 
who deny their validity are to be treated as in- 
surrectionists and traitors. The action of Gover- 
nor Reeder is referred to as gii-ing validity to the 
Legislature of the oppressors. Can that give any 
force to these acts, if the facts alleged be true? 
Does the report meet the real question at issue.' 
If it be true, that the elections in any Territory 
of this Union were carried by people from a 
neighboring State, or from a foreign country, and 
a Legislature were thereby imposed- upon the 
people of the insulted Territory, I ask, is there 
a man in America who would have the hardihood 
to say that the acts of the Legislature must be 
obeyed because the Governor of the Territory 
had recognized it. or because those elected by 
the invaders decided their election to be valid? 
Of course the Legislature so decided. Did you 
ever know a tyrant or a despot trampling on the 
necks of his subjects deny his own right to do 
so? 'Such an act would be the most remarkable 
exhibition the world ever saw. And yet it is 
gravely argued in this report that, because the 
oppressors decided that tliey had the right to 
oppress, wc cannot, therefore, inquire into the 
fact whether they were oppressors or not. It 
1*QS been contended in debate here, that we are 
estopped from looking into the transaction in 
consequence of the acts of Governor Reeder. 

Sir, wiio was Governor Reeder? An instru- 
ment in the hands of the Executive, appointed by 
the President of the United States, and removable 



at his will. It has been contended that the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska act estabhshed the principle of self- 
government and popular sovereignty in the people 
of the Territory; but when you look into the act, 
you find that the Governor is not elected by the 
people, that they have no voice in his election, or 
in his removal, but that he is the mere instrument 
of the President, and liable to be removed at any 
moment. 

I deny that a territorial Governor can make 
valid the acts of an assembly of usurpers by re- 
cognizing them as a Legislature. The great fact 
remains, and it is not met by the report, that the 
people of Kansas have been conquered, as the 
Governor himself once said, and a Legislature has 
been imposed upon them by violence. Without 
denying this, the report, to use a legal phrase, 
demurs to the declaration, thereby admitting the 
charge, but denying that it aflibrds any reason 
why the acts of such a Legislature should not be 
enforced ! 

But, sir, an attempt is made to get rid of the 
odium justly attaching to many of the acts of 
this spurious Legislature, not by directly denying 
the existence of the obnoxious acts, but by intro- 
ducing into the report the proceedings of a conven- 
tion of the people of Kansas, composed chiefly of 
office-holders, as it would seem — the Governor, 
judges, marshal, and district attorney, being 
present — which undertook to say, that»the laws 
of the Legislature had been most grossly mis- 
represented. I wish to look a little at the justi- 
fication thus set up, and see whether it is war- 
ranted by the facts. That convention declares: 

" It Ijas been cliarged and widely circulated, that the 
Legislature, in order to perpetuate their rule, had passed a 
law prescriliing the qualification of voters, by which it is 
declared ' that any one may vote who will swear allegiance 
to the fugitive slave law, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and 
pay one dollar;' such is declared to be the evidence ofcil- 
inenship, such the qualification of voters. lu reply to this 
we say that no such law was ever passed by the Legisla- 
ture. The law prescribing the qualification of voters fcx- 
pressly provides that to entitle a person to vote he must be 
twenty-one years of age, an actual inhabitant of this Ter- 
ritory and of the county or district in which he offers to 
vote, and shall have paiil a territorial tax. There is no law 
requiring him to pay a dollar tax as a qualification to vote." 

We happen to have the laws here, and I wish 
to call attention to some of their provisions. In 
chapter 138 of the Kansas statutes is this pro- 
vision: 

"In addition to the provisions of the act entitled 'An 
act for the collection of the revenue,' the sheritT of each 
and every county shall, on or before the first Monday of 
October, 1855, collect the sum of one dollar, as a poll tax, 
from each person in the said Territory of Kansas who may 
be entitl(!d to vote in said Territory, as is provided iw the 
said act to which tbisis supplementary." 

In chapter 66 of the same book the qualifica- 
tion of voters is prescribed as follows: 

"Every free white male citizen of the United States, 
and every free male Indian who is uiade a citizen by treaty 
or otherwise, and over the age of twenty-one years, who 
shall be an inhnhildnt of this Territory, and of the county 
or district in which he ofiV-rs to vote, and shall have paid a 
territorial tax, shall be a qualified voter." 

Section thirteen declares: • 

" It shall he the duty .if the sheriff to have his tax-book 
at the placcof holding elections, and to receive, receipt for, 
and enter upon his lax-book ail taxes wliich may be teu- 
dcred him on the day of any election." 

Do not these statutes prove tkc truth of the 



11 



allpgation which the office-holders' convention 
has und'.Ttaken to deny? Is it not true that any 
inhabitant may vote who ^vill ])ay his dollar tax? 
Is not every voter requii-cd to pay the tax? Is 
not the slieiiff required to be present at the polls 
to receive it ? Is any residence necessary ? Not 
a day. It is enough if he \vho claims the right 
of suffrage is at the time an " inhabitant" of the 
Territory and district where he offers to vote. 
We all understand how this word "inhabitant" 
may be construed so as to require nothing more 
than inhabitancy at the moment of voting. 

Mr. COLLAMER. I will rei^ark to the gen- 
tleman, if he will allow me, that the law requir- 
ing a poll tax, and providing for its collection, 
was to take effect immediately; and tlie other law 
which he has read was to take effect in October, 
1856. One was the dollar tax, and the other "a 
fifty cent tax; and provision was made for pay- 
ing at any time a man pleased. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think, then, that the 
allegations which have gone abroad are fully sus- 
tained by an examination of the statutes them- 
selves, and that the convention of Kansas office- 
holders were themsi^lves mistaken. Another 
section of the election law declares that any person 
offering to vote shall be presumed entitled to vote; 
but if his right is challenged, he is required to 
swear to support the Kansas-jVebraska act and the 
fugitive slave law. There are many persons jvho 
woiild object to swearing to sustain the fugitive 
slave \a\i; and are they to be dej>rived of the 
right of suffiage on that account ? I will not un- 
dertake to justify people who set at defiance the 
the fugitive slave act. My opinion is, that under 
the constitution of the country the owners of slaves 
have a I'ight to a reasonable law for their reclam- 
ation when they escape. 

These are my views. I avow theni here and 
everywhere. But, while such is my opinion, I do 
not think it proper to prevent an individual who 
thinks differently, and who believes the fugitive 
slave law to be unconstitutional, from voting. 
There are persons South, as well as North, who 
believe it to be unconstitutional; and to require 
of such persons, or any person, an oath to sup- 
port it as a cpialification to vote is oppressive. 
There are features in the fugitive slave act repul- 
sive to many persons. No man wants to take an 
oath to assist, in apprehending runaway negroes. 

Again, it is said, in reference to this election 
law : 

" It is difnciilt to see liovv a more guarded law could be 
framed for the purpose of proteeliii" tlie purity of clectioiis 
a;id the sanctity of the ballot-ba.\." 

Ik is difficult to sec how a more guarded law 
could be framed than that which permits any male 
citizen of twonty-cnc }'ears of age to vote who is 
an inhabitant of the Territory, and pays a dollar ! 
That is a guarded law in the opinion of the offi- 
cials of Kansas. Again, they say: 

" It tias altio been ciiaijjod against the Legislature that 
tlioy elected all the otticers of the Territory for six years. 
Tliis is without any foundation. Tl)ey elected no olRcer 
for six years; and the only civil officers they retain the elec- 
tion of that occur to us at, present, are the auditor and 
treasurer of litate, and the district attorneys, who hold 
their oiTicos for four and ||ot six years. I!y tlie o:>uiic act, 
tlie commissions issued by the Governor to the civil officers 
Ot the Teni.ory all expired on the adjouriinient of the 



Legislaturr;. To prevent a failure in the local administra- 
tion, and from necessity, the Legislature made a number ol 
temporary appointnienls, such as probate juddre, and two 
county commissioners and a sherifi' for each county. The 
probate judge and county commissioners constitute tli<' tri- 
binial for the transaction of county business, and arc in- 
vested with the power to appoint justices of the peace, con- 
stables, county surveyors, recorder, and clerk, &c. Probate 
jndges. county c(unmissioners, sheritl's, &c., arc all teTiipo- 
rary appointments, and are made elective by the people at 
the first annual election in 1857." 

Now for the facts: chapter 93, section 4, of the 
Kansas laws, js as follows: 

"Every justice of, the peace shall hold his office for the 
term of tiv,' years, and until his successor is duly clio^un 
and qualilied." 

That is very plain. Justices of the peace are 
to hold their offices for five yf ars, and that is, I 
suppose, considered but temporarily in Kansas. 
Another act, chapter 37, provides for the organ- 
ization of Arrapahoe county, and section 2 is 
as follows: "Allen P. Tibetts is hereby ap-. 
pointed judge of the probate court of Arrapahoe 
county." 

Section 4 declares: 

" The said judge of probate shall have power to appoint 
such oliicers of the county as are specified in this act, and 
not appointed, and justify the same. All such appoint- 
ments made by the judge'of probate shall be entered of 
record.'' 

Section 8 declares: 

"The said judge of probate shall have full power to ap- 
point a justice or justices of the peace within and for said 
county. Section 9. There shall be appointed by said judge 
one sheriff, one treasurer, (who shall be cxojjicio assessor,) 
and one surveyor." 

The Legislature create a judge, who is author- 
ized to appoint the sheriff, the treasurer, justices 
of the peace for five years — all the officers; and 
this. is what is denominated the "self-govern- 
ment," and " popular sovereignty," guarantied 
by the Kansas-Nebraska act to the people of those 
Territories, and these are the laws which are to 
be enforced at the point of the bayonet. 
■ I come now to a portion of this report with 
which I am very much gratified, a part of it which 
I can indorse, as enunciating the true doc- 
trine in reference to the rights of a people in a 
Territory; but it is very much at war with that 
othcrdoctrine which has been proclaimed through- 
out the land on nearly every stump in the West, 
that the people of a Territory possess the power 
of self-government, and the right of sovereignty. 
The question has been asked over and over again, 
by every village politician advocating the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, "Why does not a man possess 
just as much power to govern himself wheii he 
moves out of a State into a Territory, as Jie did 
when he lived in a State .-" The question has been 
asked of asseinblcd thousands, "Do you lose 
your senses when you go into a Territory, that 
you cannot govern yourselves?" The " great 
principle" of the Kansas-Nebraska bill was said 
to be, that it guarantied "sovereignty" and 
"self-government" to the people of the Terri- 
tory. The idea that self-government could be de- 
rived, and soveri'ijnty conferred, was, of conrse, 
an absurdity; but "self-government and pop- 
ular sovereignty " were captivatihg terms, and 
welj calculated to mislead. They have answered 



12 



their purpose, and are now cast aside. The re- 
port says: 

" The sovereiOTty of n Territor)' romains in abeyanrc, 
susppjided ill the^ United States, in trust for the people until 
Ibey sliall be admitted into the Union as a State." v 

Never was a truer sentiment advanced; and I 
hope never again to hear of " sqii.itter sover- 
eignty," " popular sovereignt}'^," and "self-gov- 
ernment," as applied to the people of a Territory 
under a territorial government; but the very next 
seijtcnce of the report has the word." self-govern- 
ment " crowded into it, as if it would not do to 
omit it altogether. Hence it is asserted, that the 
people of the Territory " are entitled to enjoy 
and exerci.se all the privileges and rights of self- 
goi'emmeiit in subordination to the Constitution 
of the United States, and in obedience to their 
organic law, passed by Congress in pursuance of 
tliat instrument." 

Nobody ever doubted that they had a right to 
'exercise all the privileges, not of se(/-government, 
but of government, conferred upon them by the 
organic act. If the word " self" had been left 
out, the sentence would have been complete, and 
consistent with the one which precedes it. The 
report says: 

"These rights and privileges are all derived from' the 
Constitution, through the act of Congress, and must be 
exercised and enjoyed ill subjection to all the limitation:? 
and restrictions wliich that Constitution imposes. Hence 
it is clear that the people of the Territory have no inherent 
sovereign right under the Constitution of the United States 
to annul the laws and resist the authority of the territorial 
government wiiich Congress lias established in obedience 
to the Constitution." 

There is the whole doctrine clearly stated. 
The people of a Territory have no inherent rights 
to pass laws except in accordance with the charter 
granted them by Congress. This was the doc- 
trine of the ffithcrs of the Republic; and I rejoice 
exceedingly that the committee have come to 
this conclusion in their report. I hope w(; shall 
hear no more about this idea of sovereignty in a 
Territory — an idea utterly inconsistent with its 
existence as a part of the Union. Two sovereign- 
ties cannot exist within the same dominion. One 
must be subject to the other. 

The committee attribute the origin of the diffi- 
culties in Kansas to an attempt to violate the 
principle of the organic act. What this principle 
IS the report does not explain, except in the con- 
fused language of the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
which, as has already been shown, is understood 
differently in diff:-rent parts of the Union. 

Sjr, I do not trace these difllculties to violations 
of the mongrel principle of the Kansas-Nebraska 
act. That act contains no definite, fixed, and 
certiiin principle. It is admitted in the report 
that all the powers of the people of the Territory 
are in subordination to Congress, and arc held in 
ftlieyanre by Congress so long as the Territory 
lasts. There is no principle established by the 
territorial act which has been violated. That act 
proff'ssed to throw the whole Territory open to 
competition, or rather the authors of the bill pro- 
fessed to believ:', and informs^] the country that 
slavery was not intended to go into "Kansas or 
Neiira.skq,; that nobody expected it. It was but 
natural; then, that those persons who were opposed 



to slavery, and who preferred to live in a com- 
munity where slavery did not exist, should have 
flocked to that Territory which they were told 
was to be free. This violated no principle of the 
law. 

What, then, sir, is the occasion of the excite- 
ment now existing throughout the length and 
breadth of this land ? I will tell you. It has its 
origin solely in that one fatal mistake made two 
years ago, when the Missouri compromise was 
repealed. If the policy adopted in 1850, which 
was to leave the question of slavery in a country 
when organized, into a Territory in the condition 
Congress found it at the time, had been adhered 
tor, there would have been no difficulty; we should 
have had no slavery agitation; and at tliis time 
there would have been no occasion for procla- 
mations from the President, nor orders from the 
Secretary of War, to enforce the laws in any part 
of the country at the point of the bayonet. The 
policy of 1850 M^as a let-alone policy. Congress 
at that time foimd the territory which we had ac- 
quired during the Mexican war with an -existing 
law prohibiting slavery, and what did Congress 
do.' Did it repeal that lawf Certainly not; but it 
organiz'^dthe Territories of Utah and New Mex- 
ico, leaving the law as it found it. It was then 
contended on this floor by S:'nators North and 
Soujh, and I could read by the hour from the 
opinions of the most distinguished men of this 
body at that time to show, that the Mexican laws 
by which slavery was abolished were left in full 
force. That was the opinion of the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan. 

The Committee on Territories, who reported the 
firstNebraska bill, stated thatit would be a d(;part- 
ure from the policy adopted in 1850, which was 
to leave the Territories of Utah and New Mexico 
as Congress found them, with the Mexican law 
untouched, if they were now to introduce a pro- 
vision to repeal the eighth section of tlie act for 
admitting Missouri into the Union, and, there- 
fore, they recommended not to repeal that provis- 
ion. Afterwards different counsels prevailed, 
and it is to those different counsels that we owe 
all the excitement, and all the agitation, and all 
the danger which have grown out of this quf s- 
tion. Such was the opinion of the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan at the time t!ie Nebraska 
bill was under consideration; and, in the com- 
mencement of his-romarks on that occasion, he 
expresses his regret that a provision should have 
been introduced to repeal the Missouri compro- 
mise, and open again the agitation of this aan- 
gprous question. 

Now, sir, what is the remedy.' It is obvi<)us. 
If we could approach this question calmly and 
dispassionately, v/ithout excitement; if Senators 
could be actuated by that feeling which seemed to 
animate them some years ago, when they said 
they had no expectation of slavery going into 
Kansas, and which animated our fathers when 
the Missouri compromise was adopted, it seems 
to me they would'conseiit to restore it, and in so 
doing they would, in my opinion, in thirty days 
give peace to the country. If we could forget 
the excitement growing ouf of misappreliensiou 
in different parts of the country, as to the views 



entertained in other parts, and look upon this 

auestion as friends of the Union, as lovers of 
le Constitution, as men willing to do all tiiat lies 
in our power to perpetuate the glorious heritage 
which has been handed down to us, I think we 
ehould be willing to do this. I shall not, how- 
ever, make the proposition, for the reason that I 
cannot see any probability of its passage at this 
time. It should have my vote, and I should be 
exceedingly glad to see it proposed with a pros- 
pect of success, and coming from Senators resid- 
ing in the South. 

But, sir, if that cannot be done, what is it our 
duty to do ? Shall we sit still and leave these 
obnoxious laws which have been alluded to, and 
many others to which I have not alluded, but to 
which the attention of the Senate has been hereto- 
fore called in this discussion, in full force ? Is that 
statute to remciin in force in the Territory which 
makes it a penal offense, punishable by impris- 
onment for two years, for a person to say that 
slavery does not rightfully exist in Kansas ? 
Why, sir, before God, I believe it docs not right- 
fully exist there. Every man who believes that 
the Territorial Legislature \vhich sat in Kansas 
was imposed upon the people by fraud and vio- 
lence — that it was a usurpation — and that slavery 
cannot exist without a municipal law to protect 
it, must believe that slavery does not rightfully 
exist in Kansas; and yet he is hable to punish- 
mejit for avowing that opinion ; and not only for 
avowing it, but for circulating a document that 
avows it ! 

Instead of meeting this question in a fraternal 
spirit, with kindness upon all sides, we hear it 
said that these laws are to be enforced at f,he point 
of the bayonet; and ihe'President is commended 
by Senators for the course he has taken in refer- 
ence to this matter. Now, I wish to review the 
President's action upon this subject. I know it 
has been said that the laws are to be enforced, 
and that we must put down traitors and insur- 
rectionists. True, sir; but we must find traitors 
before we hang them; there must be an insur- 
rection before we undertake to quell it. As yet 
that state of things has not arisen, in my judg- 
ment, which makes it proper to denounce as trai- 
tors the settlers of Kansas, who have resorted to 
the only means left in their power to escape the 
despotism which is being imposed upon them. I 
do not understand them to have organized any 
resistance to the General Government. I recog- 
nize the authority of Congress to govern the Ter- 
ritories of tills country while they remain Ter- 
ritories, and deny the right of that or any other 
Territory to set at defiance the action of Congress. 
Were the people of Kansas to do that, and levy 
war against the United States, they would be 
guilty of treason, and the whole power of tlic 
Governrnent should be exerted to reduce them to 
subjection and enforce the laws. Rut that case 
has never arisen, and I trust it never may. It is 
a very different thing from treason for tiie people 
of Kansas' to resist tlie acts of usurpers and 
tyrants. Sir, we are told by an authority little 
less than Divine, that " Resistance to tyrants is 
obedience to God." If the Legislature which 
eat in Kansas was composed of men who were 



elected, in defiance of tlxe act of Congress, by an 
army of invaders from abroad, I say there is no 
obligation on anybody to obey their laws; and 
so far from condemning as insurrectionists those 
who resist them, we should strengthen the hands 
of the men who are seeking to set them aside. 

The message and documents the President has 
sent us are said to contain "all the information 
on the subject" of Kansas affairs in the Depart- 
ment of State. This was on the ISth of February, 
185G. We have, then, before us all the inform- 
ation in the possession of the Executive on the 
18th of February last. 

To show how the people of Kansas have not 
only been imposed upon by a spurious Legisla- 
ture, but also the means which have been resorted 
to to embarrass and place them in afalso position 
before the country, and in an attitude of hostility 
to the. General Government, I beg attention par- 
ticularly to the documents which have been laid 
before us; and I will undertake to show to tne 
satisfaction of any intelligent mind that there was 
no just occasion for the invasion of Kansas in 
December last; that it was gotten up, as appears 
from the documents themselves, upon false ru- 
mors, and without sufficient cause. The first we 
know of this difficulty is in a telegraphic dispatch 
from the Governor, Wilson Shannon, as follows; 
Westport, Missouri, Dccemhcr 1, 1855. 

I desire authority to call on the United States forces at 
Leavenworth to pveservi! the peace flf this Territory ;. to 
protect the sheriff of Douglas county, and enable him to 
execute the legal process in his hands. If the la^vs arc not 
executed, civil war is inevitable. An armed force of one 
thousand men, with all the implements of war, it is said, 
are at Lawrence. They have rescued a prisoner from tlie 
sheriff, burnt houses, and threatened the lives of citizens. 
Immediate assistance is desired. This is the only means 
to save bloodshed. 

Particulars by mail. WILSON SHANNON. 

His Excellency Franklin Pierce. 

Now, sir, on what was Governor Shannon's 
dispatch founded? OnSheriff Jones's letter, tell- 
ing him that Branson, a'person arrested on a peace 
warrant, had been rescued by an armed body 
of between forty and fifty men, as the Governor 
writes; but of between thirty and forty, as Buck- 
ley, who was present at the time of the rescue, 
swears. 

This was the immediate and the main cause of 
that modest request of Sheritf Jones for " three 
thousand men to aid him in the execution of 
the, warrants in his hands, cind to protect him 
and his prisoner from violejice." The prisoner 
olluded to was Coleman, who had killed Dow, 
but who does not appear from the papers commu- 
nicated to have been at the time in the sherilT's 
custody. 

• The affidavits of Jones the sheriff, of Buckley, 
who sued out the peace-warrant against Branson, 
of Hargis, and tlie letttT of Clark to the Governor 
all bear date subsequent to the Governor's dis- 
patch to the President, and could not, therefore, 
have furnished the grounds on which it vv^as sent. 
To go still further back, we find there waaa very 
slight excuse, either for the suing out of the 
jx^acc -warrant, or the conduct of Jones in arrest- 
ing Branson. At the risk of making myself 
somewhat tedious, I will read a portion of Buck- 
ley 's affidavit, made on the 6th of'Deceatber, 



14 



1855, as he gives the origin of the siege of Law- 
rence, He swears: 

" That he was informed on zood authority, and which he 
believed to be true, tlmt Jacoh Branson had threatened his 
life, both before and after tlie ditTieiilty between Coleman 
and Dow, which led to the death of the latter. I understood 
that Branson swore tliat deponent should not breathe the 
pure air tinee minutes after 1 returned, this deponent at this 
time having gone down to Westport, in Missouri ; that it 
was these threats, made in various shapes, that made this 
deponent really fear his life, and wliich induced him to make 
affidavit against the said Branson, and procure a peace-war- 
rant to issue, and be placed in the hands of the sherilT of 
Douglas county ; that this deponent was with the said 
sheriff (S. J. Jones) at the time the said Branson was ar- 
rested, whieh'took place about two or three o'clock in the 
morning ; that Branson was in bed when he was arrested 
by said sherif}';,thatiio pistol or other weapon was presented 
at the said Branson by any one ; that after the arrest, and 
after the company witli the sheriff had proceeded about five 
miles in the direction of Tjccompton, the cr.jnty seat of 
Douglas county, the said sheriff ai.d his posse were set upon 
by about between thirty and forty men, who came ftutfrom 
behind a house, al! armed with Sharpe's rifles, and presented 
their guns cocked, and called out who they were ; and said 
Eranson replied, that they haH got him a prisoner; and these 
armed men called on him to comfi away. Branson then 
went over on their side, and Sheriff Jones said they were 
doing something they would regret hereafter in resisting the 
laws ; that he was sheriff of Douglas county, and as such 
had arrested Branson. These armed men replied that they 
had no laws, no sheriff, and no Governor ; and that they 
knew no laws but their guns. The sheriff being overpow- 
ered, said to these men, that if they took him by force of 
arms he had no more to say, or sometlting to that import, 
and then we rode off." 

Jones's account of the forcihle rescue agrees 
substantially with that of Buckley. Buckley's 
complaiftt against Eranson was founded upon 
rumor. It scarcely amounted to sufficient to 
justify a justice of the peace in issuing a war- 
rant. When the warrant was issued, it ailbrded 
no sort of excuse for the arrest of Branson at the 
time and j:flace and in the manner it was made. 

Branson was the friend of Dow, who had been 
killed a few days before by Coleman, who had 
escaped; the neighborhood was •excited, party 
feeling ran high, Branson was quietly sleeping 
at home, when,, at the dead hour of night, his 
dwelling was entered by Jones and his posse of 
ten men, of whom Buckley, who had sworn out 
the peace-warrant, was one; the arrest was made, 
and Branson was hurried ofl' in the darkness of 
night in the direction of a distant county seat. 
His neighbors, learning that a body of men had 
entered Branson's house, had seized and were 
carrying him they knew not whither, nor for what 
purpose, verj'^ naturally gathered together to learn 
what these things meant. While assembled, 
Jones and his party, having Branson in custody, 
came passing by. The assembled neighbors call 
out in the darkness to know who is there, and, 
on being answered by Branson, they tell him to 
come with them, which he quietly does; and this 
is the rescue of the prisoner, to recapture whom, 
and for his own protection when no man pursued, 
Sherift' Jones calls on Governor Shannon for three 
thousand men, and the Governor responds to his 
call b^ issuing orders to Generals Richardsan 
and STrickler to fly to his protection with the 
militia, and calls on the President for the addi- 
tional assistance of United .States troops. 

Governor Shannon, in his letter of December 
11th to the President, says that not more than 



three or four hundred of the militia of the Terri- 
tory assembled at the call of Generals Richardson 
and Strickler, but that their forces were soon 
swelled ty men from Missouri to near two thou- ' 
sand men. and that " the great danger to be ap- 
prehended was from an unauthorized attack on 
the town of Lawrence." What a change was 
wrought on Governor Shannon when he saw 
how lie had been imposed upon by false rumors, 
and learned the real truth ! His great fear now 
was that the Imp and order men whom he had 
unnecessarily assembled for the protection of 
Jones would make an unauthorized attack upon 
the people of Lawrence ! Governor Shannon 
repaired to_ that place, satisfied himself that no 
one against whom a writ had been issued was in 
Lawrence, had no difficulty in coming to a satis- 
factory arrangement with its inhabitants as to 
the execution of the laws, which a large majority 
of the people claimed they had always been will- 
ing to uphold, though they denied the validity of 
the acts of the bogus Legislature. A treaty was 
then concluded between Governor Shannon and 
the people of Lawrence. They were authorized 
by him to protect themselves against the army 
assembled at Wakarusa under Generals Fiich- 
ardson and Strickler, which subsequently dis- 
banded, and the disturbances in the Territory 
were quieted, as the President tells us in his 
special message, " in a satisfactorij manner." The 
history of this whole disturbance, from its incep- 
tion in the issuing out of a peace-warrant for 
an insufficient cause, till the final disbanding of 
the invading army when the Missourians re- 
turned grumblingly to their homes, has m.ore the 
appearance of a conspiracy on the part of the 
officials and others in Kansas to place the free 
Slate settlers in a false position, that an excuse 
might be found for attacking and exterminating 
them, than of an honest cflbrt to enforce the laws. 

Branson seems to have been a quiet, fnoffens- 
iveman, who needed not to have been put under 
bonds to keep the peace, when he was fleeing as 
for his life. Sheriff Jones needed no army for 
his protection, for no one seems to have been dis- 
posed to moleshhim, nor was an army necessary 
for the maintenance of law in Lawrence, for the 
people professed themselves willing to submit to 
the laws, save those of the assumed Legislature, 
which, by the treaty of peace, which seems to 
have been satisfactory to the President, they were 
not required to acknowledge. It is>manifest that 
Governor Shannon acted without suflicient cause 
when he assembled an army chiefly of Missou- 
rians to enforce the laws against the citizens of 
Lawrence; and this is virtually acknowledged by 
the treaty of peace which he subsequently made 

The disturbances of December last, the Presi- 
dent tells us, " were speedily quieted without the 
effusion of blood, and in 'a satisfactory manner." 
What occurred afterwards, and before the 11th of 
February last, to justify the President in issuing 
a proclamation, — placing the troops of the United 
States at the service of Governor Shannon.' We 
have all the papers before us, and they contain 
no application from Governor Shannon for United 
States forces since that of December last in refer- 
ence to a disturbance which was satisfactorily 



15 



terminated long before the proclamation was 
issued. I take it, then, the proclamation must 
have been issued upon the infurniation comnuini- 
cated to the President by Lane and Robinson, 
informing him that an " overwhelming force of 
the citizens of Missouri" were organizing upon 
the borders of Kansas for the purpose of demol- 
ishing the towns and murdering the unoffending 
free-State citizens of the Territory. If it was 
upon that information that the proclamation was 
founded, then it is cruelly unjust to the free-State 
men who asked for protection; for it is mainly 
directed, not against aggression from Missouri, 
but against some fancied insurrection within the 
Territory, when there is no evidence of any such 
contemplated insurrection in any of the docu- 
ments communicated, and we have all the inform- 
ation which was in the State Department at the 
time the proclamation was issued. 

But the order, of the Secretary of War to Col-' 
onels Sumner and Cooke is still more objection- 
able than the President's proclamation. The 
material part of it is as follows: 

" If, therefore, tlie Governor of the Territory, finding the 
ordinary course of judicial proceedings and the powers 
vested in United States marshals inadequate for the sup- 
pression of insurrectionary combinations or armed resi:-t- 
ance to the execution of the law, should make requisition 
upon you to furnish a miliipry force to aid him in the per- 
formance of that official duty, you are hereby directed to 
employ for that purpose such part of your command as may 
in your judgment consistently be detached from their ordi- 
nary duty." 

Would the officers to whom this order is di- 
rected be authorized to go to the assistance of the 
Governor to repel the expected invasion from 
Missouri, should it be attempted .' If not, and the 
order is only designed to allow the United States 
forces to be used to prevent the free-State men 
within the Territory from organizing and arming 
to protect themselves against the apprehended in- 
vasion, it is both cruel and unjust. I can hardly 
think the order could have been so intended. But 
the point has been made before, and never satis- 
factorily answered. The order is unfortunately 
worded, to say the least; and it is much to be 



regretted that it should have been so framed as to 
give color even to the idea that the General Gov- 
ernment was more willing to use its power to put 
down insurrection in the Territory than invasion 
from without. Senators have justified and com- 
mended the entire action of the Executive in ref- 
erence to Kansas affairs; but, for my part, I can 
see no justification in the documents before us for 
sucit a proclamation and suck orders as have been 
issued. When an invading army marched into 
Kansas, and controlled its elections by driving its 
inhabitants from the polls, we were told the Presi- 
dent had no such official knowledge of the fact as 
would justify his interference to protect the ballot- 
box. 'How is it that he could neither see nor 
hear of those invasions, in utter disregard of an 
act of Congress, and yet is so ready, without any 
official information, to take notice of an opposition 
to the enactments of a spurious Territorial Legis- 
lature ? The fact that Governor Reeder did not 
officially notify him of the Missouri invasions is 
no excuse. It is the duty of the President to see 
that the laws of the United States be faithfully 
executed; and if Reeder neglected his duty he 
should have removed him. It cannot be tliat the 
President v/as uninformed of the manner in which 
the elections in Kansas were carried; the facts 
were proclaimed throughout the land, and known 
to everybody. 

I would not censure the President for making 
use of the Army of the United States to prevent 
civil war in Kansas, or to put down resistance to 
acts of Congress; hut I hope never to see the 
United States soldiers engaged in forcing sub- 
mission to the barbarous and inhuman acts of 
that spurious Legislature which was forced upon 
the people of Kansas by violence and against 
their will. As a remedy for existing evils, if 
Congress will not restore the Missouri compro- 
mise, it ought at least to annul the present terri- 
torial acts, and give the actual settlers an oppor- 
tunity to elect a Legislature for themselves, a 
privilege which they assert has thus far been 
denied them, and which^ssertion this report does 
not venture to deny. 



^.-'j^yT-S?'*'' 



I 



